and shuttered their windows and stopped doing business. How long do you think it would take for new entrepreneurs to step in and take their place?

I mean we have this group of rich folks who started on their trek to make their fortune when tax rates on income of all kinds was much, much higher now whining that they will close up shop if required to pay a couple of extra percent in taxes.

LET THEM!

America is about people seizing opportunities and their leaving might create the biggest opportunity this country has ever experienced.

BTW, they ought to be taxed like any other ex-pat who moves their assets offshore as well.

I mean we have this group of rich folks who started on their trek to make their fortune when tax rates on income of all kinds was much, much higher now whining that they will close up shop if required to pay a couple of extra percent in taxes.

Agreed.

Start with the TBTF banksters, the Wall St. crooks and the Federal Reserve.

They should be paying taxes at about a 90% rate, since they reap 90% of the benefits in our rigged system.

How long do you think it would take for new entrepreneurs to step in and take their place?

______________________

A long time. If there was someone ready to take their place they would. Remember when everyone owned a Palm Pilot? Apple destroyed the PDA market. Then Google came out and replaced Apple (operating system that is)...Did McDonald's and Burger King remain the only fast food chains? No, new ones are popping up frequently.

How about Warren Buffet? If anyone could do what he did they'd also be 1%ers...Joe Schmo can't do that. What about doctors and lawyers? You think someone can just jump in and take their place?

If the 1%ers were to leave, there wouldn't be anyone to take their place.

The exception would be Congress where everyone is a 1%er. I think we could survive if all of them retired today, same with the President.

Actually, after available deductions, 1%ers were taxed at 34.0 percent in 1960, 36.1 percent in 1970, 37.6 percent in 1980, 31.5 percent in 1990, 35.7 percent in 2000 and 31.3 percent in 2004

Those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

A long time. If there was someone ready to take their place they would.

I doubt it. Remember there is a big difference between trying to wrest a business away from someone and just stepping in and filling a need that suddenly isn't being filled. The highly skilled would just migrate here from other parts of the world if we couldn't fill the spots internally.

These 1%ers have just too high an opinion of their value to America. They forget that Americans pull together in crisis. We'll just create a new set of 1%ers that will be more than happy to pay an extra percent or two for the opportunity to amass that kind of income and wealth.

Americans don't begrudge the wealthy of either their income nor their wealth, they begrudge the sense of entitlement that these folks have about "I've got mine and I will not pay one dime more to the country that allowed me to amass it" Even though they were paying higher taxes when they started out on their road to fame and fortune.

We'll just create a new set of 1%ers that will be more than happy to pay an extra percent or two for the opportunity to amass that kind of income and wealth.

______________

There's your problem. You think someone created the 1% out of some program. That's not so...and you'd be surprised how many people will change their mind about paying excessive taxes after they start pulling 90 hour work weeks to get where they are.

Another problem is you correctly believe that someone would be happy to take the place of a 1%. Everyone would love to have a seven figure job, but that's something you have to earn. Nobody is giving you a seven figure job because you want it. You need to earn it.

Of course, to get that sort of equality one would have to be incorporated as a bank.

"...when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you… you may know that your society is doomed."*

There's your problem. You think someone created the 1% out of some program. That's not so..

Sure it is, it's called Capitalism.

That's not so...and you'd be surprised how many people will change their mind about paying excessive taxes after they start pulling 90 hour work weeks to get where they are.

You'd be surprised at how many people are already working 80 and 90 hour weeks with no hope of getting anywhere close to 7 figures total earnings for their lifetime. I met one just yesterday when I took my 100 year old mother to the hospital. We used Valet parking and the young man has been working there for quite some time, very polite, remembers our names the whole bit. I got a chance to talk for a minute with him and he told me he also has a night job because he has a family with 6 kids.

I've never claimed that (most) of the 1%ers didn't earn it, I'm claiming that they are whining about a tax rate that is actually lower than when they started out and they worked hard knowing that the marginal dollars would be taxed higher. Now, even after a proposed raise in the tax rate they would still be paying less and they're crying and saying they'll close their businesses.

I've never claimed that (most) of the 1%ers didn't earn it, I'm claiming that they are whining about a tax rate that is actually lower than when they started out and they worked hard knowing that the marginal dollars would be taxed higher. Now, even after a proposed raise in the tax rate they would still be paying less and they're crying and saying they'll close their businesses.

___________

It's actually a higher tax rate, but you're looking solely at income taxes and not all of the other hidden taxes, like the ones listed in ObamaKare...throw in the cost of compliance with new regulations and you're looking at a much higher number.

That's the old liberal trick...hide the taxes. Look at your phone bill or look at the price of gas pre-tax. Most people have no idea how much they really pay in taxes.

"<<<<They should be paying taxes at about a 90% rate, since they reap 90% of the benefits in our rigged system.>>>>"

Yeah, right..they drive 1000 times more cars, have a house that needs 1000 times more fire fighters and police just standing by......need 1000 times the water and electricity and rights of way for cable TV.....

gotcha...

and they need 1000 times the national defense to keep their wives and kids from being raped by islamo terrorists.....

and need 1000 times the amount of student aid for their kids...oops, no, they pay full freight....and also likely donate millions to their alma mater....

well, you libs can't win them all.

Actually, you can win any of them, since you have WEALTH ENVY.

Worse, you don't understand the difference between INCOME,which you can tax, and net worth, which you cannot.

The rich can simply sit back, invest in tax deferred and tax free vehicles.....rake in megabucks, and pay not a dime or very few dimes in taxes. Legally. Or invest in real estate, take the depreciation, invest in oil/natural gas or farming, and take all the write offs they are entitled to...and pay next to nothing in taxes.

Duh!..

Silly libs and their wealth envy.

Just watch to what is happening in France with theirnew 75% tax rate. The 'richest' guy in the country applied for citizenship outside France and will move. THe top 100 earners have their homes up for sale, planning to move out of the country by next year when the tax takes effect. Businesses won't expand and are saying so. They are expanding elsewhere, but not in France.

Go watch Atlas Shrugged Part II - opens this Friday...to see what libs do...nationalize....strangle...tax to death...... (or just watch France as it self destructs - but that will take a few years).

"Americans don't begrudge the wealthy of either their income nor their wealth, they begrudge the sense of entitlement that these folks have about "I've got mine and I will not pay one dime more to the country that allowed me to amass it" Even though they were paying higher taxes when they started out on their road to fame and fortune."

99lashes wrote: Try that with brain surgeons, or other efforts that require a long term determination and effort, let alone capital and see what kind of collapse you have. Not to say a few of these folks cannot be replaced, but all of them and at once? Talk about naive....sheeesh.

No kidding. The mortgage industry can't even ramp up fast enough when interest rates hit rock bottom lows, let alone the rest of the country's entrepreneurs.

However, I think it's a good idea. They ought to all go on strike at the same time and let the country see how "you didn't build that" feels then.

telegraph wrote: They pay all the taxes required. Not a dime more. Even Buffet COULD pay more but doesn't.

That's right, and he's not gonna, no matter how much he touts the Buffett Rule.

I don't give a flying fig about Mitt Romney's wealth or how he got it. If he passed muster with the IRS, he passes muster with me. We can assume the IRS is fine with his taxes because he's not in prison for tax evasion. The ONLY THING I care about is J-O-B-S and the economy, which are both a mess under Obama's watch.

"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."

You'd be surprised at how many people are already working 80 and 90 hour weeks with no hope of getting anywhere close to 7 figures total earnings for their lifetime. I met one just yesterday when I took my 100 year old mother to the hospital. We used Valet parking and the young man has been working there for quite some time, very polite, remembers our names the whole bit. I got a chance to talk for a minute with him and he told me he also has a night job because he has a family with 6 kids.

So just what is your point? This guy made a choice to have 6 kids and all that comes with that.

My oldest daughter is working 60+ hours a week and still can't pay her bills. She is single, no kids but a dog. I remind her that was what a good college education was to help with. That is what she did not take advantage of and this is the price one pays for the rest of their lives. It is her choice.

Probably smokes like a chimney, too. Why is it that poor people more often than not have an expensive habit like smoking?

I love how in one sentence you make an unsupported assumption, and in the very next sentence you're using that assumption as if it were a fact, and basing more assumptions on it.

Frydaze1

______________________________________

to quote you...

I love how in one sentence you make an unsupported assumption, and in the very next sentence you're using that assumption as if it were a fact, and basing more assumptions on it.

snip"While it was established long ago that smoking rates are higher among the poor, a Gallup survey released on Friday suggests there is a sliding scale: smoking decreases as income increases.

The poll, based on interviews with more than 75,000 Americans this year, also indicated that Americans are thoroughly worldly when it comes to lighting up — they smoke at almost the same rate as the worldwide median. A 2006 poll concluded that 22 percent of mankind smoked; 21 percent of Americans smoke, according to today’s count."

recent articles...snip"The low-income now spend twice as much of their earnings on cigarettes as they did in 2003, when the state imposed a tax of $1.50 [compared to the current $4.35 tax] on each pack."

Your data shows that more poor people smoke than non-poor. It also says things about the amount of money that poor smookers spend. It does NOT support his statement that ...poor people more often than not have an expensive habit like smoking?

It's an easy logic mistake to make, and I'm not going to harrass you for it. But let me break it down differently for you so you can see why the statements are different.

You data shows the equivalent of:More of the children in school A choose strawberry milk over chocolate milk than do the children in school B.

The numbers might be:School AStrawberry milk 10%Chocolate milk 90%

School BStrawberry milk 15%Chocolate milk 85%

His statement was:Most of the children in school B choose strawberry milk over chocolate milk. This would require that strawberry milk choices were > 50%

Why is it that poor people more often than not have an expensive habit like smoking?

And to continue that trend of thought...

Various economic groups have their different spending trends that cost more than their means would support. For the poor it might be smoking. For the middle class it might be shopping, new houses, and new cars. For the wealthy it seems to be mistresses, mansions, and drugs.

No class is immune from it. And they all look pretty silly to anyone who isn't drawn to those particular luxuries. No doubt the poverty level smoker is laughing at the pop star who is trying to sell his 4 houses and file bankruptcy.

The origional poster said, " Probably smokes like a chimney, too. Why is it that poor people more often than not have an expensive habit like smoking?"

You replied, "I love how in one sentence you make an unsupported assumption, and in the very next sentence you're using that assumption as if it were a fact, and basing more assumptions on it."

And now you say, "It's an easy logic mistake to make, and I'm not going to harrass you for it. But let me break it down differently for you so you can see why the statements are different." and followed with what flavored milk analogy school children drink.

What part of my links backing up the op 'poor people more often than not have an expensive habit of smoking' don't you understand?

and shuttered their windows and stopped doing business. How long do you think it would take for new entrepreneurs to step in and take their place?

I mean we have this group of rich folks who started on their trek to make their fortune when tax rates on income of all kinds was much, much higher now whining that they will close up shop if required to pay a couple of extra percent in taxes.

LET THEM!

America is about people seizing opportunities and their leaving might create the biggest opportunity this country has ever experienced.

BTW, they ought to be taxed like any other ex-pat who moves their assets offshore as well.

Poz

LOL. This is hilarious. Yeah, that's all that is holding the non-1%-ers back -- lack of opportunity because the 1%-ers took all the opportunities. Lack of initiative or ability isn't holding them back.

In none of those income brackets is the number of smokers greater than 50%. Therefore the statement that "poor people more often than not have an expensive habit of smoking" can't possibly be true, since more often than not members of each group do NOT smoke.

Your links don't say what you are claiming they say. I tried very hard to help you see where your logic failed. Please try reading my prior post without the chip on your shoulder before you reply again and compound your error.

I don't know if your link was intended to help me or LM. Or help me explain it to LM.

Certainly more low income people smoke than high income. I don't disagree with that statement at all. As I said, different income brackets have different trends of stupid purchases they can't afford. Among my age bracket it seems to be bigger houses, new cars every couple of years, and new clothes every few weeks.

But "more smoke than don't" can't be true, unless more than 50% smoke. And in none of the brackets, even the lowest, is that the case.

LOL. This is hilarious. Yeah, that's all that is holding the non-1%-ers back -- lack of opportunity because the 1%-ers took all the opportunities. Lack of initiative or ability isn't holding them back. ______________________

Rather scary isn't it?

I did notice it earlier, but it as just so dumb I knew there could be no possible way to get through to its' author.

The only reason that anyone does not get ahead is because someone else got ahead. Remove the folks that got ahead and the problem goes away.

It is not uncommon among the left to believe this apparently.

It is just hard to imagine the combination of brain dead and childish jealousy that it takes to be willing to admit to these beliefs.

It appears that Obama buys into this as well BTW, except of course for politics where some are simply irreplaceable. It is one of the many reasons I question the claims of Obama's intellect being above middlin'

You know, I really have to laugh when trolls such as you drop their feigned smart a$$ remarks. It's what you do every time you think you have something to contribute here. Either get to the point or don't waste my time. Your grade school swipes are a bit stupid and laughable. Remember, you are at the asylum where posters of your ilk are a dime a dozen with stupid droppings.

try your first link

The first link clearly shows the lower the income the more smokers compared to higher income earners.

from the 1st link"While it was established long ago that smoking rates are higher among the poor, a Gallup survey released on Friday suggests there is a sliding scale: smoking decreases as income increases"

Your links don't say what you are claiming they say. I tried very hard to help you see where your logic failed. Please try reading my prior post without the chip on your shoulder before you reply again and compound your error.

I suggest you take a reading comprehension course. Each link clearly points out lower income earners smoke more than higher income earners.

from the 2nd link"The study acknowledged that low-income populations tend to have higher percentages of smokers,"from the 3rd link"The poorest smokers in New York spend almost a quarter of their household incomes on cigarettes, and they also smoke more than wealthier people, a new study suggests."

You know, I really have to laugh when trolls such as you drop their feigned smart a$$ remarks. It's what you do every time you think you have something to contribute here. Either get to the point or don't waste my time. Your grade school swipes are a bit stupid and laughable. Remember, you are at the asylum where posters of your ilk are a dime a dozen with stupid droppings.

You've got a serious chip. I wasn't being a smart a$$. I really was trying to help you, nicely, to see where you're wrong. But you can't get past your paranoia long enough to actually read it.

Each link clearly points out lower income earners smoke more than higher income earners.

Yes. They say that. They do NOT say that there are more smokers than non-smokers among any income bracket, even the lowest ones.

I suggest you take a reading comprehension course.

I'm not the one with reading comprehension issues. These two sentences do not say the same thing:1) 'poor people more often than not have an expensive habit of smoking'2) 'poor people more often than wealthier people have an expensive habit of smoking'